Haryana

Kurukshetra

63/2017

Jagir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC - Opp.Party(s)

Jasbir Singh

07 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.63 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 16.03.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:07.03.2018.

Jagir Singh S/o Sh. Bishan Singh, resident of Village Garhi Langri, Plot No.2, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office Model Town, Pehowa, through its Branch Manager. 
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office: 489, Model Town, Karnal through its Divisional Officer. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Jasbir Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. B.L.Bansal, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Jagir Singh against Life Insurance Corporation, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the son of complainant namely Sh. Balbir Singh had obtained a policy No.178002745 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, date of commencement 28.09.2012 from the Ops and was regularly paying the installments.  It is alleged that the son of complainant died on 16.06.2013 due to electric shock and a DDR No.19 dt. 16.06.2013 was lodged in Police Station Pehowa.  The post-mortem of dead body of son of complainant was also conducted.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops have released an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on 08.08.2013 instead of Rs.2,00,000/.  It is further alleged that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the Ops were bound to pay the death claim i.e. double of the sum insured of the policy but the Ops did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony as well as Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that a proposal form on the life of Balbir Singh (Minor), D.O.B. 20.09.1995 (17 years old) was introduced through his guardian father Sh. Jagir Singh on 15.10.2012 for sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The life assured Balbir Singh was minor at the time of taking the policy and as per rules, the accidental benefit cannot be extended to the minor.  No premium was charged for accident benefits under the policy as there is no provision to issue policy with double benefits on the life of a minor.  The minor on attaining majority could opt for the accidental benefits on payment of requisite amount of the premium.  Since no option was exercised to him and therefore, no amount on this account was payable.  The basic claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the policy has already been paid to the complainant through NEFT on 08.08.2013 in his bank account No.55105291731 of SBI Patiala.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The complainant has led his evidence to prove his version.  No evidence has been led by the Ops. 

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

6.             As per liability of policy schedule, the complainant is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/-.  Admittedly, the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- has already been made by the Ops to the complainant.  So, in such like circumstances, the complainant is entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

                So, in these circumstances, the complaint of complainant stands allowed and the Ops are directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:07.03.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member